2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[Axver]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

It's a technicality.

Yes, and courts and legislatures deal with these all the time.

Try harder. Or don't. It feels like you're now just arguing for the sake of arguing, refusing to back down in the face of good rebuttals from multiple posters, and I have better things to do with my day.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

He should have gotten a declarative statement 2 years ago.

It's called a declaratory judgment. I'd like to hear your reasoning on why and how you think that this is actually an available form of potential legal remedy (aside from your man Trump yelling it out every 5 minutes).

I'm no legal scholar

Yes. Maybe leaving it at that would suffice.

[Mack_Again]

I am not a legal scholar so I would not participate this discussion.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.

By that logic, there'd be lots of political issues individual posters should stay away from discussing on here, then, since they won't always "directly pertain to them".

Seriously, what an odd response. I love hearing thoughts from non-U.S. posters about our country's way of doing things. Never hurts to get a perspective from an objective (or relatively objective, depending on the situation) third party. Plus, as Axver noted, what happens in the U.S. can often have an impact beyond our borders.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's called a declaratory judgment.







Yes. Maybe leaving it at that would suffice.

Statement, judgment. Forgot the precise terminology. Is anybody in here a lawyer? No sense boiling over when everybody is debating the same issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

This question needs to be answered just so we can avoid these stupid fucking debates every election cycle.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

This question needs to be answered just so we can avoid these stupid fucking debates every election cycle.

True


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Statement, judgment. Forgot the precise terminology. Is anybody in here a lawyer? No sense boiling over when everybody is debating the same issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Sorry. Just realized you are a lawyer


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

No, critical thinking would recognise that there are a range of opinions on the interpretation of this clause, some of which diverge from your own. It has been interpreted differently across American history by political figures, legal scholars, and others. Your failure to acknowledge this is not critical thinking, it is simplistic.

That's just it though, it's an opinion. Everyone has one. My intention of "thinking critically" is to acknowledge that the only reason someone wants to question Ted Cruz's eligibility is because they want to question Ted Cruz. I don't care what someone's "interpretation" of ye old word is. Constitutionalism is wrong. That's treating it like its the bible. If it's a serious question, take it to referendum or seek an amendment of the wording is confusing or not properly understood.

I don't even know why you're pursuing this so vehemently because we agree about how it should be interpreted. You just seem unwilling to entertain that other perspectives exist or that there could be a need to clarify the definition in a court of law.

I'm not at all agreeing on how it should be interpreted. I'm saying that it shouldn't be interpreted at all. The status quo already exists. If the definition is hazy, redefine it. Don't reinterpret it, because then it's always open to an agenda. Take gay marriage or abortion into context... depending upon the mood and makeup of the court, those can go any direction. If we want true legalization of gay marriage, we ought to have it written into law. Not just interpreted from some two hundred year old document.

Stop being silly. Are you even familiar with the sort of legal minutiae that goes before courts? Are you suggesting all court rulings are just "someone's opinion ... because they have a gavel"? This question is of significant import and a court should clarify the interpretation because, as has been noted repeatedly, there are divergent interpretations of the phrase. Should a person born outside the US with American citizenship be elected president, a decision will need to be taken on which interpretation has force of law. I do not see why this is objectionable.

Again, I don't care about interpretation. That's the whole point of Obama appointing a super liberal justice. Because, these days, you have justices like Scalia and Sotomayor who will give their OPINION based upon their agenda.

So the only things on which I am allowed an opinion are those that directly affect straight white male New Zealand-Australian dual citizens?

Guess I must now stop caring about marriage equality, feminism, Aboriginal and Maori rights, etc.

What a narrow way of seeing and understanding the world that would be.

I didn't say that at all? You're welcome to have any opinion you want. But, much like if I were lecturing you on what it is to be a New Zealand-Australian dual citizen, you're lecturing me on being an American-Canadian dual citizen. You wouldn't care too much if I told you what it meant to be Kiwi or Aussie, I'm sure. Sorry if that came off offensive. I'm brash, but more so defensive with my wording.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Axver

Yes, and courts and legislatures deal with these all the time.



Try harder. Or don't. It feels like you're now just arguing for the sake of arguing, refusing to back down in the face of good rebuttals from multiple posters, and I have better things to do with my day.

I'm refusing to back down because I disagree that they're good points. This topic is only an issue when it's convenient for it to be an issue. It has no other foundation.

[gump]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.

Your arguments are horrible in lots of different ways, but just to stay with your own line of thinking, you are crazy if you think that the American presidency has no implications for an Australian-Kiwi person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra...vasion_of_Iraq

I wish it was none of our business (our=a human being anywhere).

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by gump

Your arguments are horrible in lots of different ways, but just to stay with your own line of thinking, you are crazy if you think that the American presidency has no implications for an Australian-Kiwi person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austra...vasion_of_Iraq

I wish it was none of our business (our=a human being anywhere).

What the hell does that even mean? Where did I suggest that the American presidency doesn't impact anyone else? That's something entirely different from suggesting that an outsider's opinion of constitutional law in the United States matters. You're making it seem like I'm *supporting* Ted Cruz. And, if so, you're exemplifying the problem. Because that would be suggestive of the idea that a lawsuit is a reasonable way to deter Ted Cruz from becoming president.

[cobl04]

I can't even figure out what the fuck you're arguing about. It looks like you're agreeing with each other.

Anyway, good to see Jeb! isn't panicking as his campaign dies in the arse.

[LuckyNumber7]

What we were arguing about was whether or not suing Ted Cruz, from the democrat side, is hypocritical.

My point is that it's already understood that he's eligible for presidency. That's the de facto understanding. It's not something that needs to be questioned, and it's not something that needs to go to court.

One of the biggest things about the xenophobic case of birtherism, to me, was that Obama was still born a citizen regardless of the conspiracy.

In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not even a debate. Some people insist it is a debate, and I'm equating that debate to the equivalent of interpreting the bible. Trying to "understand" the constitution by means of interpretation is a recipe for opinion deciding law. It says what it says, and it won't change unless you change it.

[gump]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

What the hell does that even mean? Where did I suggest that the American presidency doesn't impact anyone else? That's something entirely different from suggesting that an outsider's opinion of constitutional law in the United States matters. You're making it seem like I'm *supporting* Ted Cruz. And, if so, you're exemplifying the problem. Because that would be suggestive of the idea that a lawsuit is a reasonable way to deter Ted Cruz from becoming president.

Sorry to the rest of the group for prolonging this unnecessarily. My point here is that you keep using an obnoxious argument to suggest that non-US citizens have nothing to contribute on US matters like constitutional law. This is a patently wrong, nativist and unfortunately not uncommon argument. I don't care one bit about who you support for the elections. But I just like to call out bullshit when I see it. What qualifies one to comment on this issue is not one's place of residence, but rather her knowledge of the law. I'd rather debate this with a knowledgeable Martian than an uninformed Georgian or Floridian.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by cobl04

well that's disgusting.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

What we were arguing about was whether or not suing Ted Cruz, from the democrat side, is hypocritical.

My point is that it's already understood that he's eligible for presidency. That's the de facto understanding. It's not something that needs to be questioned, and it's not something that needs to go to court.

One of the biggest things about the xenophobic case of birtherism, to me, was that Obama was still born a citizen regardless of the conspiracy.

In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not even a debate. Some people insist it is a debate, and I'm equating that debate to the equivalent of interpreting the bible. Trying to "understand" the constitution by means of interpretation is a recipe for opinion deciding law. It says what it says, and it won't change unless you change it.

I'm willing to be corrected about this from someone who knows more than I (anitram?), but my understanding is that is not quite true. Why? Not because people question whether Cruz was an American citizen at birth. He clearly was. My understanding is that there is actually legitimate debate about what "natural born citizen" means. The most obvious reading is "citizen at birth", but, apparently, there's a decent argument that "natural born" means "citizen by virtue of the constitution" instead of "citizen by virtue of Congressional statute", where citizenship from a birth within the US is granted by the constitution but citizenship by being abroad to American parents is granted by Congressional statute.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

My point is that it's already understood that he's eligible for presidency. That's the de facto understanding. It's not something that needs to be questioned, and it's not something that needs to go to court.

You're just so wrong here it's hilarious.

It's taught in our school systems the way I view the topic. It's why I view the topic the way I do. It's how I was taught.

Bringing it before the courts settles the dispute. Ends the conversation. Educates people correctly. Starts a new conversation about whether people who gain citizenship can run, etc.

Your reaction is beyond over the top at this point. You've flipped out about stuff before, but this is a new level.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

well that's disgusting.

My thoughts exactly. Not surprising, of course, given the GOP's attitude on the gun issue, but still...ugh.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by gump

Sorry to the rest of the group for prolonging this unnecessarily. My point here is that you keep using an obnoxious argument to suggest that non-US citizens have nothing to contribute on US matters like constitutional law. This is a patently wrong, nativist and unfortunately not uncommon argument. I don't care one bit about who you support for the elections. But I just like to call out bullshit when I see it. What qualifies one to comment on this issue is not one's place of residence, but rather her knowledge of the law. I'd rather debate this with a knowledgeable Martian than an uninformed Georgian or Floridian.

You're right, I'm basically xenophobic and nativist by suggesting that Ted Cruz, who I hate, shouldn't have his eligibility for presidency put into question because he's Canadian.

But yes, I do believe that having the experience of living in this country and paying taxes and, you know, having this citizenship issue actually apply *to me* (not that I'm running for president)... sort of makes my opinion a little more relevant. Because it's just an opinion. If it were facts we were debating, that's different. But this is all opinion. And with anything opinion based.. say, gay marriage, yes, I think the opinion of a gay person is a lot more important than the opinion of a straight person. Not that the opinion of a straight person is invalid, but it's definitely less meaningful to that individual than it is to someone who is more directly impacted by the topic.